Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dan O. said:
The screen saver evidence was first presented in Raffaele's appeal. It wasn't even relevant until the prosecution shifted the time of death to 11:30 in their closing arguments.
Click to expand...

But why does it not demolish in itself any charges against Raffaele?
If it can be proved that he was constantly working on the computer all night long then any DNA business is irrelevant.

Amanda was talking about having sex that night, having flood, having dinner, etc.
It is at a variance with the screensaver log evidence, isn't it?
 
RoseMontague said:
Thanks RW. This cocaine thing is just completely bogus. If the evidence is so strong why do those on the side of guilt see fit to just make these things up?
Click to expand...


To be fair (no reason, but let's), they seem to be speculating about a motive, having decided that she definitely did it.

Rolfe.
 
bolint said:
But why does it not demolish in itself any charges against Raffaele?
If it can be proved that he was constantly working on the computer all night long then any DNA business is irrelevant.

Amanda was talking about having sex that night, having flood, having dinner, etc.
It is at a variance with the screensaver log evidence, isn't it?
Click to expand...


We don't know, really. It's quite possible to do other things in a home, but keep coming back to the computer. I do it all the time.

Also, the defence can't neglect any points. If they rely on one killer piece of evidence, and for some reason the court doesn't accept their view on that, they are going to look pretty silly if their clients are then convicted because they omitted to challenge another fish-in-a-barrel point.

It's the same for the time of death. No matter how compelling the 9.20 time of death is, it's always possible the court won't follow the reasoning. The utter failure of the PMF crowd to follow the reasoning may be a warning light in that direction. So the defence have to cover other possibilities as well.

Now you mentioned evidence placing Knox in the cottage at 9.00 pm and following. I am not aware of such evidence. As far as I can see the prosecution are tying themselves in knots trying to prove a much later time of death for precisely that reason. So what do you think proved Knox was there at that time?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Was Rudy Guede drug tested?

RoseMontague said:
Thanks RW. This cocaine thing is just completely bogus. If the evidence is so strong why do those on the side of guilt see fit to just make these things up?
Click to expand...

Hi RoseMontague,
That's a good question...

Here's a simplier question that I would like to find an answer for:
Was Rudy Guede drug tested through collection of hair samples?
If so, what were the results?

A bit curious about what Rolfe has mentioned today,
I just had a quick look at PMF and found this gem by Castanea
As far as the "cokeheads" story goes, a hair drug test would have shown cocaine use within 90 days, considering how cheap they are to perform it is ludicrous to think the Perugia police didn't do them. So there are no drug test results that would easily confirm your story, and no witness has ever came forward to say Knox was using cocaine, the story is a lie.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, cocaine has a 90 day shelf life, so to say.
Well, according to Barbie Nadeau, who states that "most of the material in her book comes from official court materials and that the forensic evidence is based on transcripts of court testimony and the 10,000 page crime dosier known as the Digital Archive, I will assume that it is safe to say that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito did not use cocaine in their short, what was it, 6 day romance prior to Meredith Kercher's murder, beause they were drug tested on Nov. 6, 2007 and using har samples, only the slightest unidentifiable trace of narcotics was found - not even enough to identify the substance.

But what about Rudy?
It would be interesting to find out if indeed Rudy Guede had been using cocaine as his bro Momi said in the Telegraph article that I linked the other day, which I'll post again:
"In the document, Abukar Mohamed Barrow, known as “Momi”, accused Guede of drinking too much, taking drugs and trying to steal the handbags of young women during nights out on the town.

“Rudy was often drunk. I know he took cocaine. Often he was off his head with the drugs that he was taking. And when he was like that he would be a nuisance to girls, he’d block their path and try to hassle them. When we were in crowded places he stole their bags,” Barrow testified, according to excerpts of his evidence printed in the Italian press."
Click to expand...
Underline/bolding by me.

Link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...er-trial-Rudy-Guede-was-violent-to-women.html

Someone publicly stating that he knows that Rudy Guede used cocaine?
Show me the drug testing results!:D
See ya,
RW
 
Last edited:
The only positive point there is the third one, and if you can tell to a reasonable degree of certainty that the CCTV image is of Amanda, HOW?

The entire story makes far better sense if it's built around a time of death of about 9.20. The prosecution explicitly rejected that, and went for 11.45. Why do you think that was?

ETA: For her own "admission", you may like to state what you are referring to. There are a number of things she said which she later retracted as having been coerced. Raffaele's claim that she was out also doesn't stand up to scrutiny - are you talking about the time he seems to have been talking about the previous evening? And the fact that a couple of semi-stoned lovebirds couldn't agree on exactly what they were doing that evening suggests innocence to me - not compatible with a couple who had hours to rehearse a plausible alibi.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
bolint said:
Thank you.
I found that in that post:


I concluded the same from those 9 pages.

Is this then the "screensaver evidence"?
I expected something more.
Click to expand...

It was filed by the defense in support of the request for independent expert review on the computers. My opinion remains what I said then:

My take on this is that the Police computer expert has again showed a lack of expertise and there is more than sufficient evidence for further outside expert review asked for in the appeals.
Click to expand...
 
Rolfe said:
The only positive point there is the third one, and if you can tell to a reasonable degree of certainty that the CCTV image is of Amanda, HOW?
Click to expand...

The woman is in skirt while Meredith was wearing jeans.

The entire story makes far better sense if it's built around a time of death of about 9.20. The prosecution explicitly rejected that, and went for 11.45. Why do you think that was?
Click to expand...

They wanted to use the scream evidence.

ETA: For her own "admission", you may like to state what you are referring to. There are a number of things she said which she later retracted as having been coerced. Raffaele's claim that she was out also doesn't stand up to scrutiny - are you talking about the time he seems to have been talking about the previous evening? And the fact that a couple of semi-stoned lovebirds couldn't agree on exactly what they were doing that evening suggests innocence to me - not compatible with a couple who had hours to rehearse a plausible alibi.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much Raffaele knew about what had happened.
I actiually find it more credible that he was not there during the murder.
So I think that there was no real rehearsal concerning the murder.

The Nov 4 bugged conversation between them supports that.
 
Well, that's novel.

If you don't think the woman in the CCTV picture was Meredith, how can you say it's Amanda? She's a blob.

Rolfe.
 
RoseMontague said:
My take on this is that the Police computer expert has again showed a lack of expertise and there is more than sufficient evidence for further outside expert review asked for in the appeals.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that Raffaele was constantly on the machine all night long from 18:26PM to 6:22AM so that there was never an interval longer then 6 minutes during which the mouse or the keyboard was not touched?

It would be interesting in itself.
But to do this without reading or creating files, without making internet traffic and at the same time watching Amelie and then Naruto would be a remarkable feat, indeed.
 
bolint said:
What I see established is that she was at the cottage around 21:00 and on.
And their account of the events of the night and the next morning is not believable.

That's enough for me to conclude that at least Amanda is involved somehow.
Click to expand...


Errr.....WHAT?!

Do you realise what you've just written here? You believe it's "established" that Knox was at the cottage "around 21.00 and on"?? And on what evidence, pray, do you believe that this fact is "established"?

And your following sentence is hardly any better. In what way is Knox's/Sollecito's account of the events of the night and the next morning "not believable". And no circular arguments here please, for example nothing along the lines of "well, they weren't at Sollecito's apartment because they were at the cottage murdering Meredith".

I would hope that those arguing for guilt could do a little better than this. And it bears repeating once again that anyone arguing for guilt has to show that there is positive proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox/Sollecito were participants in the murder. Heck, even someone arguing that they did it (but that perhaps there is insufficient evidence to convict) has to show that there's at least some positive evidence that they were participants.

In reality, there's no decent, robust evidence that definitively places Knox or Sollecito at the cottage at the time of the murder, and no decent, robust evidence that they were in any way involved in the murder. Furthermore, there's no solid, robust evidence to contradict their accounts of their movements on 1st/2nd November 2007 (except, perhaps, for Quintavalle's testimony, which I regard - reasonably in my view - as frankly unbelievable and unreliable).
 
bolint said:
Do you really believe that Raffaele was constantly on the machine all night long from 18:26PM to 6:22AM so that there was never an interval longer then 6 minutes during which the mouse or the keyboard was not touched?

It would be interesting in itself.
But to do this without reading or creating files, without making internet traffic and at the same time watching Amelie and then Naruto would be a remarkable feat, indeed.
Click to expand...

I believe the police claim of no computer interaction from shortly after 9PM to early the next morning is a bunch of baloney.

I also the believe the police expert is an incompetent idiot.
 
Rolfe said:
Well, that's novel.

If you don't think the woman in the CCTV picture was Meredith, how can you say it's Amanda? She's a blob.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

This poster said earlier in the thread they are sure it is Knox because there is nothing to prove that it's not.

Which was the moment I stopped paying attention to his/her posts. So there may have been some further clarification thereafter, that I am not aware of.
 
Rolfe said:
Well, that's novel.
If you don't think the woman in the CCTV picture was Meredith, how can you say it's Amanda? She's a blob.
Click to expand...

A blob that is a woman in skirt.
She crosses the street and goes to the gates.
(At least as much as in the Meredith version, which seems to be accepted here)

No other houses nearby.

So it is plausibly Meredith or Amanda.
Meredith was wearing jeans, undisputedly.
 
bolint said:
The woman is in skirt while Meredith was wearing jeans.
Click to expand...

That's a completely unsupportable and incorrect assertion from you. The blurred figure in the CCTV footage is of a person in dark-coloured trousers (or tight skirt) who is dangling a large, light-coloured bag from waist level; the bag is quite clearly being held in front of the legs. If you care to look at the footage stills again, you'll see that the light-coloured lower area - which you have incorrectly ascribed to being Knox's skirt - is clearly not in a vertical line down from the upper torso of the person. It's not therefore the lower body (i.e. hips/legs) of the person: it's an object being held by the person in front of their legs as they walk. It's actually almost certainly Meredith holding her large beige tote bag at her waist (with it dangling down in front of her legs) in preparation for removing her door keys from it as she approaches the front door of the cottage.


They wanted to use the scream evidence.
Click to expand...

And the scream evidence is self-evidently bogus - either because the alleged "earwitnesses" are honestly mistaken, or because they convinced themselves after the fact that they heard certain things at certain times, or that they are outright liars who are courting attention.


I don't know how much Raffaele knew about what had happened.
I actiually find it more credible that he was not there during the murder.
So I think that there was no real rehearsal concerning the murder.

The Nov 4 bugged conversation between them supports that.
Click to expand...

Does it? Are you sure it does? In what way? And why on Earth would Sollecito choose not to turn prosecution witness against Knox? After all, the alternative is a potential long stretch in jail. He had been going out with Knox for exactly six days. He was due to leave Perugia anyhow within months when he finished his degree. There's every indication that his relaationship with Knox was nothing more than a casual (if intense) fling. He owed Knox nothing. If Knox had indeed participated in Meredith's killing without Sollecito's participation or even knowledge, I cannot conceive of a single logical reason why Sollecito would not have made this information known long before now. It makes no sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom